Broadband Deployment Law Advisorhttps://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com
Insight and Commentary on the Deployment of Communications InfrastructureFri, 01 Dec 2017 17:20:41 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.8Subscribe with My Yahoo!Subscribe with NewsGatorSubscribe with My AOLSubscribe with BloglinesSubscribe with NetvibesSubscribe with GoogleSubscribe with PageflakesSubscribe with PlusmoSubscribe with The Free DictionarySubscribe with Bitty BrowserSubscribe with Live.comSubscribe with Excite MIXSubscribe with WebwagSubscribe with Podcast ReadySubscribe with WikioSubscribe with Daily RotationFCC Releases Text of Wireless and Wireline Infrastructure Ordershttp://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/BroadbandLawAdvisorBlog/~3/oty9f1mugys/
https://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/2017/12/articles/broadband-deployment/fcc-releases-text-of-wireless-and-wireline-infrastructure-orders/#respondFri, 01 Dec 2017 17:20:41 +0000https://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/?p=1450Continue Reading]]>The Commission has released the final text of the Wireline R&O and Wireline FNPRM as well as the final text of Replacement Utility Poles R&O. Please see our advisory discussing the items as they were presented and modified at the Commission’s November 16, 2017, meeting as well as our earlier advisory that analyzed the drafts circulated by the Commission in October in advance of the November meeting.

The final text of the Replacement Utility Poles R&O, which was released the day after the meeting, changed from the draft in two material respects (in bold) that were anticipated in our post-meeting advisory. Replacement communications poles are still deemed exempt from historic preservation review if they are no more than 10 percent or 5 feet taller and placed in essentiallythe same location as the original or no more than 10’ away. But while the draft item noted that there could be no new ground disturbance with the replacement pole “either laterally or in depth” “outside previously disturbed areas,” the final text moves the definition of “ground disturbance” to the paragraph allowing the new pole to be set up to 10 feet away, which would presumably allow for deeper setting of poles as required, for example, with a 5 foot taller pole, and “disturbance” of the ground up to 10’ away from the original pole. A literal reading of the prohibition on “additional ground disturbance” though could still cause some confusion.

The text of Wireline R&O and Wireline FNPRM, released November 29, also changed, to incorporate recent ex parte submissions and recommendations made by the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC) in its examination of several issues raised in the initial NPRM released in April, 2016, as well as substantively. Specifically, the final draft includes substantial revisions to the section in the FNPRM addressing overlashing and drop poles. First, the Commission deleted its request for comment on how utilities treat “service drops” – i.e., connections from an attacher’s facilities on the poles to the customer’s location. At the same time, it deleted its requests for comment concerning how overlashing is performed by attachers and treated by utilities, whether to limit overlashing to “new wires and cables,” and if a new regulatory approach was warranted. Instead, the Commission now seeks limited comments on its original suggestion that it “codify[ ] its longstanding precedent regarding overlashing,” adding that overlashing “has substantial competitive effects, ultimately leading to greater deployment and lower prices for consumers,” and “ that any concerns with overlashing should be satisfied by compliance with generally accepted engineering practices.” This change in direction is helpful to attachers who, the Commission noted, have been subject to pole owners’ advance approval requirements despite the Commission’s long-standing practice (upheld in the courts) that “neither the host attaching entity nor the third party overlasher must obtain additional approval from or consent of the utility for overlashing other than the approval obtained for the host attachment.”

Comments on the FNPRM are due January 17, 2018 and Replies are due February 16, 2018.

]]>https://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/2017/12/articles/broadband-deployment/fcc-releases-text-of-wireless-and-wireline-infrastructure-orders/feed/0https://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/2017/12/articles/broadband-deployment/fcc-releases-text-of-wireless-and-wireline-infrastructure-orders/Mr. Right (of Way) – New Episode from In the Zonehttp://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/BroadbandLawAdvisorBlog/~3/oq4OZL9aTCE/
https://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/2017/11/articles/wireless/mr-right-of-way-new-episode-from-in-the-zone/#respondMon, 13 Nov 2017 22:21:48 +0000https://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/?p=1443Continue Reading]]>Wireless deployment in the right-of-way is an increasingly hot topic. While the wireless infrastructure industry continues to work with municipalities, there are still hurdles to right-of-way deployment. The FCC and many states are actively considering ways to address municipal impediments and to speed wireless deployment. How did we get here, and where do we go from here? In this episode, Scott Thompson, a nationally-recognized expert on wireless infrastructure deployment, weighs in on these important issues.

On October 26, 2017, the FCC released drafts of a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the wireline broadband deployment docket (the “Draft Wireline Order” and “Draft Wireline FNPRM”) and a Report and Order in the wireless broadband deployment docket (the “Draft Wireless Order”). The release of these two items suggests that Chairman Pai will push broadband acceleration on an issue by issue basis – even while the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (“BDAC”) is still considering related issues – rather than in one broader order in each rulemaking. The motivations and efficacy of this approach can be debated, but one concrete impact of this approach, if the Commission pursues it, will be to split potential reconsideration requests and appeals on each item’s issues. These items are scheduled to be considered at the Commission’s November 16th open meeting.

]]>https://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/2017/11/articles/broadband-deployment/fcc-issues-draft-wireline-and-wireless-infrastructure-orders-and-further-wireline-rulemaking-notice-ahead-of-november-meeting/feed/0https://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/2017/11/articles/broadband-deployment/fcc-issues-draft-wireline-and-wireless-infrastructure-orders-and-further-wireline-rulemaking-notice-ahead-of-november-meeting/FCC Action May Delay Deployment of 5G and Industrial IoT Applications and Services Under Innovative New Spectrum Sharing Regime in 3.5 GHz Bandhttp://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/BroadbandLawAdvisorBlog/~3/zhtvT3Vm4eo/
https://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/2017/10/articles/broadband-deployment/fcc-action-may-delay-deployment-of-5g-and-industrial-iot-applications-and-services-under-innovative-new-spectrum-sharing-regime-in-3-5-ghz-band/#respondWed, 25 Oct 2017 13:58:04 +0000http://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/?p=1432Continue Reading]]>The FCC’s plan to release an additional 150 MHz of spectrum in the 3.5 GHz band under the new Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) shared spectrum access regime will likely be delayed as the agency continues to work out final details of shared access rights. In action earlier today the Commission adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on several proposed changes to several aspects of CBRS regime, including potential changes to the size and term of priority access licenses, and changes to certain technical rules.

On September 18, 2017, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) that would significantly change the procedural rules governing formal pole attachment complaint proceedings filed under Section 224 of the federal Communications Act (47 U.S.C. § 224). The FCC has included the proposed changes in a broader rulemaking aimed at consolidating, revising, and streamlining rules currently governing formal complaints for pole attachments (Section 224), common carriers (Section 208), and communications accessibility (Sections 255, 716 and 718) (“ACS”), in order to enable parties and the FCC to “more promptly and efficiently resolve” disputes.

Update: Comments are due on or before October 26, 2017; reply comments are due on or before November 13, 2017.

]]>https://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/2017/09/articles/dwt-advisory/fcc-proposes-to-overhaul-procedural-rules-applicable-to-pole-attachment-complaints/feed/0https://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/2017/09/articles/dwt-advisory/fcc-proposes-to-overhaul-procedural-rules-applicable-to-pole-attachment-complaints/FCC Expands on Bidding Procedures in Connect America Fund (CAF) Phase II Auction Webinarhttp://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/BroadbandLawAdvisorBlog/~3/cW2FXvZGJ2U/
https://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/2017/09/articles/broadband-deployment/fcc-expands-on-bidding-procedures-in-connect-america-fund-caf-phase-ii-auction-webinar/#respondWed, 13 Sep 2017 16:55:53 +0000http://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/?p=1422Continue Reading]]>Signaling a clear commitment to a successful reverse auction process for the Connect America Fund (“CAF”) Phase II proceeding, members of the FCC’s Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force hosted a webinar yesterday that provided an overview of the CAF Phase II application requirements, and an in-depth review of the bidding procedures for this first of its kind reverse auction. As we have outlined in prior advisories, the CAF Phase II auction will distribute up to $1.98 billion (over ten years) in support to competitive providers able to deliver broadband and voice service to unserved areas via a reverse auction process.

Anticipating the many questions arising from this initiative, the staff from the Auctions Task Force offered specific details of the auction bidding procedures, including: how bids are submitted, how winning bids are assigned, how support amounts are determined, and much more. To review the information that was communicated during the webinar, the slides provided during the presentation can be reviewed here. Additional background on bidding and application procedures can be found in our prior advisories.

Importantly, the bidding procedures discussed during the webinar, which were adopted in an August 2017 Public Notice, are still subject to further public comment. Initial comments on the proposed procedures are due September 18, 2017, and reply comments are due on October 18, 2017. The FCC cannot move forward with the CAF Phase II auction until the bidding procedure proposals up for comment are finalized.

The pending comment period provides some insight into the likely timeline for the FCC to initiate the reverse auction. As we see it, once all comments on the proposals have been received, the earliest the FCC would likely finalize the CAF Phase II auction procedures would be in a December 2017 order. Although it is unclear whether the FCC would move quickly enough to issue an order by December 2017, doing so would likely indicate that the CAF Phase II auction would begin towards the end of the first quarter in 2018. This timeline is a best case scenario. Of course, the worst case scenario is that this auction is delayed until the end of 2018. Notably, the FCC Auctions Task Force staff participating in the webinar offered no definitive information concerning timing, and indicated only that the auction is planned for “sometime in 2018.” Thus, the precise start date of the auction (and associated pre-auction filing requirements) remains to be seen.

Potential CAF Phase II auction participants should be analyzing areas of opportunity, and developing bidding strategies. Unfortunately, the FCC has yet to finalize the areas eligible for CAF Phase II support, and must publish the final eligible areas list prior to the commencement of the auction. Staff from the Auctions Task Force indicated that they are currently reviewing the newly-submitted Form 477 data, which the FCC will use to finalize the areas eligible for CAF II support. Once the FCC releases the final list of areas eligible for CAF II support, DWT will provide a further update on timing and auction specifics.

On Monday, July 31, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in a unanimous opinion, affirmed the FCC’s November 2015 Order on Reconsideration closing the “telecom formula loophole” to ensure that pole attachment rates for cable and telecom attachers are equivalent. In the FCC’s 2011 Order that was upheld by the D.C. Circuit, the FCC sought to align the telecom pole rate formula with the cable formula. In the 2011 Order the FCC added cost allocators of 66 percent in urban areas and 44 percent in non-urban areas, thereby matching the FCC’s presumption of 5 attachers in urban areas and 3 in non-urban areas and bringing telecom rates down to cable rates.

UPDATE: No rehearing petition (panel or en banc) was filed by the deadline of September 14. The mandate should issue by September 21. We can assume the loophole has closed, unless, of course, the utilities seek certiorari.

2nd UPDATE: The utilities do seem prepared to seek certiorari. They sought an extension to file a cert petition which was granted by Justice Gorsuch. Their deadline to file is now November 28, 2017.

3rd UPDATE: The group of electric utilities that had unsuccessfully challenged the FCC’s rule closing the “telecom formula loophole” in the Eighth Circuit filed their Petition for Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court November 28. Interestingly, there was only a single footnote reference to the DC Circuit decision that had upheld the FCC’s 2011 Order that began the process of aligning the telecom and cable rate formulas. The Utilities had sought certiorari in that case too which had been denied. That denial was omitted from their citation to the DC Circuit decision.

]]>https://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/2017/08/articles/dwt-advisory/eighth-circuit-affirms-fccs-2015-order-equalizing-cable-and-telecom-pole-attachment-rates/feed/0https://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/2017/08/articles/dwt-advisory/eighth-circuit-affirms-fccs-2015-order-equalizing-cable-and-telecom-pole-attachment-rates/FCC Reinstates CPNI Privacy Regulations (and Compliance Filing Obligations) for Telecom and VoIP Service Providershttp://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/BroadbandLawAdvisorBlog/~3/qxhrOPXVsas/
https://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/2017/07/articles/dwt-advisory/fcc-reinstates-cpni-privacy-regulations-and-compliance-filing-obligations-for-telecom-and-voip-service-providers/#respondWed, 05 Jul 2017 20:37:12 +0000http://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/?p=1415Continue Reading]]>In a recent order, the FCC has reinstated its customer proprietary network information (“CPNI”) rules governing the privacy obligations of voice service providers under Section 222. This action follows the Congressional repeal of the FCC’s 2016 Privacy Order that had extended CPNI regulations to broadband internet access services. As a result, telecom and VoIP providers must again file CPNI compliance certification at the beginning of each year (beginning again in 2018) in order to certify compliance with these regulations.

]]>https://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/2017/06/articles/wireless/new-episode-from-in-the-zone-go-federal-or-go-home-maybe-not/feed/0https://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/2017/06/articles/wireless/new-episode-from-in-the-zone-go-federal-or-go-home-maybe-not/Rosenworcel Nominated for New FCC Termhttp://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/BroadbandLawAdvisorBlog/~3/uorNkrgLXFY/
https://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/2017/06/articles/general/rosenworcel-nominated-for-new-fcc-term/#respondFri, 16 Jun 2017 13:59:48 +0000http://www.broadbandlawadvisor.com/?p=1406Continue Reading]]>On June 13, the White House announced that Jessica Rosenworcel, who served as an FCC commissioner from 2012 until her term expired on Dec. 31, 2016, will be nominated to a new term at the agency. Rosenworcel, a Democrat, has been a strong supporter of the E-rate program, and of broader efforts to close the digital divide including what she coined “the homework gap” through increased broadband deployment utilizing the universal service program.

It is not immediately clear whether Rosenworcel will be nominated to replace Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, the sole Democrat now on the FCC whose term expires on June 30 (but who may serve until the end of this year if her seat is not filled beforehand), or whether her nomination will fill the other vacant Democratic seat on the Commission. The FCC now has only three sitting commissioners— Chairman Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly, both Republicans, and Clyburn. The other two seats remain vacant, giving Republicans a 2-1 majority and a bare quorum to conduct business. It is widely reported that Brendan Carr, currently the FCC’s general counsel and a former aide to Chairman Pai, will soon be nominated to fill the vacant Republican seat.